To the Point (2 letters)

If a Republican is elected president in 2016, do the Republicans really think the Democrats won’t filibuster every single thing that president wants to do?

Jim Corcoleotes, Edgewater

I wonder how many of the executives who decided their employees must work on Thanksgiving are actually working that day. Think about that the next time you see one of those warm, fuzzy family scenes in their holiday commercials.

Charles E. Woods, Denver

These letters were published in the Nov. 24 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow eLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Because, Mr. Corcoleotes, doing exactly what you complain about what the opposition has done makes it all better.

peterpi

The point is, everything that the Democrats do to Republicans, will eventually bite the Democrats back.
And everything that the Republicans do to the Democrats, will eventually bite the Republicans back.
When the Republicans complained about the end of the filibuster on most appointments, they cried, “But we’ll do the same when we’re in charge!”
Don’t bluff: Go for it!!!
Don’t waste one second!
The moment the new leadership is sworn in, block those Democratic filibusters!
Presidential appointments deserve hearings, and a vote. Period. Regardless of the political party of the president, or the Senate majority.
All these hyper-upset Republicans forget that when Bush was president and the Demmocrats were blocking his appointments, the Republican leadership threatened to use the “nuclear option”. They. Should. Have. Done. So.

Guest

Because, Mr. Corcoleotes, doing exactly what you complain about what the opposition has done makes it all better.

Papa Smurf

When the Republicans were in the majority during the Bush (W.) administration, they threatened the Dems with the “nuclear option” to exact a pledge of restraint regarding the filibuster… and for the most part, the Dems complied. But the important point is that the Republicans couldn’t bring themselves to go through with it. They understood that a time would come when they’d be back on the short end of the stick, and they would have to live with the consequences of such a decision. Apparently, today’s crop of Democrats aren’t quite so perceptive. Perhaps they see themselves as invincible, but sooner or later, they’re going to be reintroduced to that timeless adage… what goes around, comes around. And they’ll have nobody to blame but themselves for this particular self-inflicted wound.

peterpi

Fine by me.
I’m tired of Republicans doing unto Democrats what was done to the Republicans, and Democrats doing unto Republicans what was done to the Democrats.
The Republicans should have exercised the “nuclear option” when they had that chance.
The US House manages to have debate without a filibuster. The Colorado Senate manages to have debate without a filibuster.

thor

The House uses a simple majority because they are supposed to reflect the changing will of their electors. The Senate is to be more deliberative, but now they won’t have to be. Is that what you really want?

primafacie

Indeed. However, there is a sentiment in some political segments that the legislature “get stuff done,” as opposed to “get stuff done the right way.”

peterpi

They can still deliberate.
The filibuster, or these days, the threat of a filibuster is used to block, obstruct, delay, stall, thwart. It is hardly ever used to create deliberation.
The moment Democrats are filibustering a Republican Senate majority, you’ll whistle a different tune.

primafacie

The deliberation meaning a higher voting threshold and more agreement than a simple majority. I think that’s intended to prevent the majority party from rubber-stamping itself.

peterpi

That can be done through rules changes, through allowing more debate time, etc.
Filibusters don’t foster debate. The number of James Stewart “Mr. Smith”-style filibusters is vastly outnumbered by the number of filibusters used to delay, stall, thwart, and obstruct the other side, solely because they are the other side.

primafacie

That’s what I mean. They prevent votes from being ramrodded through and foster not floor debate, but deal-making and arm-twisting. That’s the fun stuff. And it can take time.

The senate wasn’t intended to be a quick-vote-and-we’re-home-for-the-weekend body.

peterpi

The Republicans have hardly used filibusters to foster compromise and deal-making. They’ve used it to stop Obama cold.
Just like Democrats didn’t use the filibuster during Bush to compromise. They used it to try to stop Bush cold.
When bills to make June National Defenestration Memorial Month are threatened with a filibuster if Obama supports it, that’s not about deliberation. When a request to have the clerk call the morning roll is filibustered, that’s not about deliberation.

thor

Harry Reid hardly ever brings a Republican bill to the floor for a vote. Now, he won’t even need to consider their viewpoint on some issues. BTW, who cares about June National Defenestration Memorial Month?

tomfromthenews

The National Defenestration Memorial committee perhaps?

thor

Ah.

tomfromthenews

The National Defenestration Memorial committee perhaps?

peterpi

We all know what a fine, shining example of deliberation Democratic filibusters of civil rights legislation was.
Oh, that was different. The Republicans use it for noble purposes. Yeah, right.

thor

????? Yeah, right.

fanman

As originally set up in the Constitution, the Senators were to be elected by the state legislatures, making them the representatives of the state governments. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, changed that to election by the people, making it not much more than a glorified House of Representatives. The entire balance of power in the government was upset, vastly increasing the power of the federal government in relation to the states. However, it has always been a tradition and rule that debate in the Senate was to be unlimited, meaning “filibuster” was permitted.

The right of advise and consent for Presidential nominees also implies the right to dissent. Changing the rules now permits the majority to run roughshod over the minority. NO DISSENT ALLOWED HERE!!

thor

The House uses a simple majority because they are supposed to reflect the changing will of their electors. The Senate is to be more deliberative, but now they won’t have to be. Is that what you really want?

Dano2

GoOPers abused the system. They had to be brought to heel. Not hard to grasp.

Best,

D

thor

And the President is abusing the system every day. Will you also call him to task?

tomfromthenews

Call your representatives. Write him a letter. Vote for the other party in 2016. You have several “call-to-task” options.

thor

So, you want to take the focus off of Dano’s ridiculous implication that Republicans are the only ones abusing the system? Nice.

tomfromthenews

I don’t believe he said that the GOP was the “only ones abusing the system”. He just said they did. He’s right. Sounds like the Dems also did (but not to nearly the same extent) during the W. years.

thor

It really all comes down to a conflict of visions. Conservatives have a constrained vision and liberals have a utopian vision. The real problem with Barack Obama is the fact that he wants to put into play his utopian vision, by any means possible. He ignores precedent and uses any means at his disposal to move forward his agenda. When he lost the majority in the House, it put up a temporary road block, but now Harry Reid removed one road block by making it easier for the Senate to affirm any appointee that will fulfill his vision. That is why Republicans feel incumbent to hinder the appointment of ideologues with little or no real experience but will rubber stamp anything the President wants.

reinhold23

The key appointments in question were Obama’s three nominees to the DC Circuit. They’re not ideologues any more than, say John Roberts, and they have plenty of experience. But keep making s**t up….

thor

You mean John Roberts, the ideologue who was the deciding vote when Obamacare was before the Supreme Court? The one who stabbed conservatives in the back by finding the law to be a tax and voted for Obamacare? That ideologue, John Roberts? Question: do you think any of the three President Obama is putting up to sit on the DC Circuit will betray Democrats and vote their conscience instead of the party line? Answer: NO!!!!!!
But keep making s**t up…

reinhold23

Hit a nerve, did I? How about Scalia, who I disagree with on practically everything? He’s qualified and experienced, but a conservative ideologue, a politician in robes. Yet the Dems confirmed him, no filibuster.

reinhold23

Pretty much. Estrada had no judicial experience whatsoever. He claimed in a Senate hearing that he’d never thought about roe v. wade, making him either a dunce or a liar. He had no written record to take into consideration. Bush filled 4 DC Circuit vacancies to Obama’s 1. Need I go on?

reinhold23

And playing the race card, my two – apples high friend? In fact, you list no qualities of Estrada’s at all. The only characteristic you provide is that he’s Hispanic. I’m forced to conclude that you think he should have been confirmed because of… affirmative action!

Papa Smurf

Just taking the opportunity to turn the tables… or are you guys on the left the only ones allowed to make baseless accusations of rascism? And aren’t you the ones who keep saying that a president’s nominees deserve an up-or-down vote of the full Senate? If he was as truly unqualified as you make him out to have been, wouldn’t the Senate have fulfilled their Constitutional responsibilities by witholding their consent?
The operative part of my post was in the second paragraph.

reinhold23

I’m one up on you then. I don’t make charges of racism let alone baseless ones.

Papa Smurf

Good for you… but you run in the company of those who do. It’s been a continuing theme of the left ever since they realized that the right wasn’t going to shut up and acquiesce to Mr. Obama’s policies without a fight. Whenever the argument starts to go against them, out comes the racism accusation like the high trump card.

reinhold23

I can only control my own behavior. The GOP provides way too much fodder for me to need to resort to charges of racism or to use race-baiting. Doing so would only weaken my arguments.

Papa Smurf

Can’t fault you there. I again refer you to the second paragraph of my original post.

reinhold23

The operative part of mine is that there’s no comparison between Estrada & Obama’s DC Circuit nominees.

Papa Smurf

That would be your opinion… and I’m sure you believe very strongly that Mr. Obama’s appointees deserve an up-or-down vote, without the interference of an opposition filibuster. Too bad the Democrats weren’t willing to give that same consideration to Mr. Estrada. And that, Sir, is hypocrisy.

reinhold23

Nope, I believe the GOP abused the filibuster,and that they weren’t going to allow an up or down vote on *anyone* Obama nominated. SC nominees aside, because they’re too high profile.

Papa Smurf

And that makes the Dems’ treatment of Estrada OK?

reinhold23

Again, the Dems allowed up or down votes to 4 of W’s DC Circuit nominees. The filibuster can and should be used judiciously, and I believe Estrada was such a case.

I bemoan the filibuster’s demise, but I also feel the GOP left Reid a simple choice: accept that no further Obama nominees will be confirmed or go nuclear.

Papa Smurf

Fair enough… can we agree to disagree? Go in Peace.

tomfromthenews

I don’t believe he said that the GOP was the “only ones abusing the system”. He just said they did. He’s right. Sounds like the Dems also did (but not to nearly the same extent) during the W. years.

thor

Mr. Corcoleotes has it backwards I think he meant to write “Do the
Democrats think the Republicans can’t wait to return the favor if a
Republican is elected President in 2016. What makes the Democrat move
so wrong is many fold. 1. The Senate is supposed to be the
deliberative body, taking time to cool the cup of tea poured by the
House. 2. The Democrats , Joe Biden, Barack Obama and harry Reid to
name three, complained when the Republicans in 2005 tried to do what the
Democratic majority in the Senate just did. One more hypocritical move
by liberals. 3. Democrats are the ones always complaining about the
need to protect the minority. So what do they do? Pass new rules to
punish and keep out of Senate discussions the minority.

Miguel Estrada was filibustered from getting a much earned presidential
appointment during the Bush administration by the whiny Democrats who
just changed the rules. If President Obama was to put up as qualified
and as quality court appointment as Miguel Estrada, the Republicans
wouldn’t have to use the filibuster to stop him. The Democrats can now
just rubber stamp any Obama appointment, no matter how bad it is.

peterpi

Regarding #2, the Republicans should have gone and done it.
You like looking for US Constitutional justification for various political moves. There is no mention of a filibuster in the US Constitution.
The rest of your post is your usual whine about how the evil and diabolical Democrats never play fair with the good and pure Republicans.

thor

Its the Republicans who I am upset with. They should have done what you suggest. And they need to quit playing “fair.”

peterpi

Yeah, the Republicans are such wimps …

thor

And it is frustrating for me and other conservatives. We need to become bullies, like the Democrats. If we had the ba…s like the Democrats, we would have voted in ’05 to over turn the rules that the Democrats just did. But then, we didn’t have the media on our side, so it may have gone badly for Republicans.

tomfromthenews

“We need to become bullies, like the Democrats.”

Yeah! Just obstruct everything that comes from the Democrat White House! That’ll show ’em…oh, wait.

tomfromthenews

“We need to become bullies, like the Democrats.”

Yeah! Just obstruct everything that comes from the Democrat White House! That’ll show ’em…oh, wait.

reinhold23

And they’d been playing sooo fairly….

thor

Its the Republicans who I am upset with. They should have done what you suggest. And they need to quit playing “fair.”

Robtf777

“If a Republican is elected president in 2016, do the Republicans really
think the Democrats won’t filibuster every single thing that president
wants to do?”
============
Spitooeeeeeeee.

Like…..duh……dudes and dudettes.

Is the Pope Catholic?

Do bears poop in the woods?

If a Republican becomes President and/or the Republicans become the majority in the Senate………we can count on the Democrats to do all the filibustering they can……and defend every bit of it as the “time-honored, traditional, Senatorial, and All-American” thing to do.

We can count on that more than we can count on Jimmy Johnson winning his 7th championship……or the Broncos ever going to the Super Bowl ever again.

It’s that much of a slam dunk sure thing.

peterpi

I don’t see you whining about Republicans doing the same to Democrats.
So, either we stop filibusters by either party,
Or …
We let both sides continue to play games while pretending the other side is the villain.
You don’t have a leg to stand on, or a chair to sit in.

Dano2

If a Republican is elected president in 2016

Good one!

Best,

D

thor

You’re right. It should read: “[When] a Republican is elected President in 2016…”

Tbone

George Zimmerman/Joe The Plumber 2016!!!!!!111!!

thor

Why would you suggest a Democrat and a Republican for the same ticket?

peterpi

Nice comeback, LOL

thor

Putting a Democrat and a Republican on the same ticket is a nice comeback? You can be just as odd as toohip at times.

peterpi

You didn’t follow the comment trail correctly. Your comment of “It should read: “[When] a Republican is elected President in 2016…”” is a nice comeback.
Note that my “comeback” comment had a header of peterpi->thor

thor

Oops, my bad. Thanks for the compliment, now we are even on not reading carefully. Now to hear from Tbone and Dano.

peterpi

You didn’t follow the comment trail correctly. Your comment of “It should read: “[When] a Republican is elected President in 2016…”” is a nice comeback.
Note that my “comeback” comment had a header of peterpi->thor

Robtf777

“I wonder how many of the executives who decided their employees must
work on Thanksgiving are actually working that day. Think about that the
next time you see one of those warm, fuzzy family scenes in their
holiday commercials.”
=================
Spitooeeeee.

Probably as much as we can count on the Commander-In-Chief actually picking up a loaded weapon and going a really and actual patrol mission in Afghan in a Hummer.

No…..I take that back…..since there is a much greater chance that the CEO of Applebees or Safeway or the Chief of Police for Denver will actually WORK on Thanksgiving Day than President Obama will ever lead a real and actual combat mission.

Being a Commander-In-Chief…..after all…..comes with some perks.

Just as being a Governor, a Mayor, a Judge, a Police Chief, or any elected official……or the CEO of a major company……or someone in Upper Level Management……has their “perks” on having weekends and holidays off……if they so choose.

peterpi

What a cheap shot at Obama.
How many real combat missions — and landing on an aircraft carrier doesn’t count — did Bush, as president, actually fly?
You could have just referred to the commander-in-chief generically and made your point that being an executive has its privileges, namely, making sure it’s only the little people who have to work at Thanksgiving, while the executive can be thankful that he or she is not a “little people”.

Papa Smurf

At least Bush served in uniform and put his hide on the line for the possibility, however remote. Obama would break out in hives at the mere thought of donning a uniform. Oh, wait a minute… that’s right. To hear his minions tell it, he single-handedly got Bin Laden. That was an arduous mission. The strain on his face in the picture from the situation room 6000 miles away was palpable. Why I’m surprised he can even function with that PTSD he must have acquired. Give me a break.

andyandy

Which minion said he single-handedly got Bin laden. Just one name, please.

Methinks Papa Smurf is a dishonest man!

Oh, and Bush came nowhere close to putting anything on the line, except on the bottom of his bar tab.

Papa Smurf

Just one minion? OK… Chris Matthews.

Methinks andyandy is a misinformed man!

Please show me one picture of Barack Obama in a military uniform (other than possibly on Halloween). There are plenty of Bush… just Google them for yourself. Bottom line? Bush has a DD-214. Obama doesn’t. Can’t make it any clearer than that.

andyandy

Chris Matthews never said Obama got bin Laden single-handedly.

Liar.

Papa Smurf

I stand by my post… prove me wrong with something other than your *opinion.*

And keep the name calling to yourself unless you can back it up.

Waiting.

andyandy

I accuse you of child-molesting.

Prove me wrong.

Pretty weak, smurf, to make an affirmative accusation, fail to back it up, and and then pretend that someone who has called you on the lie is the one failing to back up what they say, and to demand that they prove a negative rather than to provide a quote, attribution, or reference which which would bolster your affirmative claim.

That’s not name calling. People who tell lies are liars. That would be you. You have a better word for it? Be my guest.

Is this how far you desperate Obama-haters have to go? Is there any lie so low that you won’t go there?

I feel like you deserve an award of some kind. I’ll get back to you…

thor

What RagingGnome said. Leave it ti a liberal to dive to the lowest depths to make a point. I hope you made Dano proud.

peterpi

Because a conservative would never stoop to vicious name-calling or gutter attacks.
Yeah, right.
You could have called out andyandy, without sliming all liberals. But, noooo …

I won’t wait for your apology or retraction of your vile attacks. You don’t have the moral integrity or character to admit when you’re wrong. But now we see you for what you are. Good Bye.

tomfromthenews

That’s stupid. His administration, the troops under his command…THEY got Bin Laden with Obama’s go-ahead.

You kinda can’t say “Obama tripled the deficit” and “Obama didn’t get Bin Laden” at the same time. They’re either both true or both false. I vote the latter.

andyandy

The operative word was “single-handedly.”

Methinks Papa Smurf it senile.

Papa Smurf

Read the transcripts for yourself… In both cases, Matthews states, “… Obama got bin Laden.” Period. He gives no credit to the Intelligence community who located bin Laden. No mention of the SpecOps Command folks who planned the raid. Not so much as a nod to the SEAL Team 6 operators who carried out the mission. Nothing. In Matthews eyes, as evidenced by his own words, all credit goes to the guy who’s sole contribution to the mission was to say one word… “Go.” That’s the epitome of sycophancy. But what else is new? Matthews has been humping Obama’s leg more, or less constantly, ever since Obama’s speech to the Democratic National Convention in 2004. Sort of like you, and others do now. Blind adoration, without an ounce of critical thinking.

I’ve met the burden of your challenge, but I know you don’t have the character to admit it… from here on in, you’ll be conversing with yourself. We’re done here.

I won’t wait for your apology or retraction of your vile attacks. You don’t have the moral integrity or character to admit when you’re wrong. But now we see you for what you are. Good Bye.

peterpi

That’s an absurd argument.

andyandy

Explain why. Because you don’t know what “exponential” means?

thor

You know, andy, your reply to Smurf is full of BS on so many levels its not funny. But the worst is calling him a liar when you can’t or won’t prove that he did. I have an award for you: D.O.R.K. (Disingenuous, Obtuse, Racist, Kook)

reinhold23

He said “singlehandedly”, but can’t come up with a quote. To be charitable, PS is full of BS…

andyandy

Don’t hold your breath, Reinhold.

andyandy

Don’t hold your breath, Reinhold.

andyandy

I seem to recall eight years of the Bush administration, during which the filibuster was used rarely. Just like during the administrations of ALL presidents before Barack Obama. Filibustering anything and everything is not only a new tactic, it a uniquely Republican one. The writer forgets that there are actually facts and a historical record which belie his childish and stupid remarks.

Papa Smurf

If the democrats weren’t using the filibuster in much the same way (Ref: Miguel Estrada nomination to the D.C. Court of Appeals, 2001) during the Bush administration, why then did the republicans have to threaten the “nuclear option” to get the dems to agree to restrain their use of said filibuster? The only difference is the dems pulled the trigger; the repubs weren’t quite that stupid.

peterpi

andyandy’s memory is foggy.
The use of filibuster has been rising geometrically in the last 20 years, compared with the previous 200.
One side, I’ll pick on my own, and say it was the Democrats, started using it heavily.
Then the Democrats gained control of the Senate, and Republicans upped the ante.
Then the Republicans re-gained control, and the Democrats upped the ante, leading to the Republican threat.
And so on.
Each side is playing the game of “We’ll show you!”

Dano2

No.

Best,

D

Papa Smurf

How can someone who’s on the wrong side of history (wink) be so consistently reasonable? I wouldn’t mind having that beer you spoke of another time, either.

andyandy

Sorry to hear about your broken Google, peter. Let me help.

From Politifact, who checked Harry Reid’s claim that over half of the filibusters of presidential appointees in the history of the republic occurred during Obama’s term, which BTW, has three more years:

“By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a
total of 147.”

These things can be expressed in numbers, peter, they aren’t matters of opinion.

There were 130 filibusters during Bush’s eight years, which I agree is a lot, and there have already bee 307 during Obama’s five years. I believe these figures don’t include appointees, but I could be wrong, and want to stop wasting my time arguing with people who think they can make up their own facts.

(Oh did you hear? Chris Matthews said Obama got Bin Laden all by himself! I didn’t even know he knew how to fly a helicopter!)

This is beneath you, peter. I’m disappointed. You know the truth.

Numbers, baby.

thor

In other words, you don’t want to waste time with yourself? Cool.

ThePyro

Actually, pete’s trend data isn’t off the mark at all. Search for a Washington Post article titled “The history of the filibuster, in one graph”, posted online back on May 15, 2012. The only thing pete seems to have wrong is the number of years – it’s actually more like 40, not 20. Extending it into 2013 only emphasizes the identified trend.

Perhaps the most confirmatory line from the article: “What that means is that the rise of the filibuster is largely about ‘norms’ in the Senate. It didn’t become more effective and thus more popular. It actually became less effective, but parties chose to use it more.”

The Washington Post article is not alone in noting this trend, nor is it the only one identifying the response tactics used by the majority party at any given time to offset or circumvent the filibuster (a good example is “Curbing Filibuster Abuse” from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University).

It has been a long game of one-upsmanship, and the numbers (baby) certainly support it. Where it’ll go from here will be interesting to watch.

andyandy

You’re right. I should have pointed that out. The very use of the word “exponential” bears this out.

In other words, it doubles over the same period of time. Peter and I are both right. Except my memory isn’t foggy, and he doesn’t know the meaning of the word “exponential.”

tomfromthenews

“If a Republican is elected president in 2016, do the Republicans really
think the Democrats won’t filibuster every single thing that president
wants to do?”

Well, other than the generally partisan nature of things, there hasn’t been any evidence that they will. Even so, in such a situation, the GOP will have to finally be glad to have the new filibuster rules in place, so stop yer whinin’.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.